Church and State

[das_atheist]

Respecting is defined as, "with reference or regard to".

The law references the church as an authority on birth certificates.

When someone gets married at a church, the state doesn't recognize that either.

But the amendment doesn't read 'respecting religion', it reads 'respecting an establishment of religion'.  Using a church record to verify a birth doesn't establish a religion.

Boru

But doesn't this law respect all religious establishments?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Again, it isn't a question of respecting a religion, or even respecting a religious establishment (noun).  It is a prohibition against respecting the establishment (verb) or the installation of a State religion.

Boru

[Metis]

I don't see the problem with it. Like them or loathe them there is no denying the Catholics and Mormons have some of the best record keeping skills on the planet. I don't see any reason to object to a baptismal certificate, in fact in the case of the Mormons, Anglicans and Catholics theirs are probably more reliable than the state issued birth certificates in some countries!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The only thing that concerns me is the Mormon passion for posthumous baptism.  If they'll baptize Anne Frank and Albert Einstein as Mormons, it doesn't give me a huge amount of confidence in them as record keepers.

Boru

[Metis]

They do, but the don't issue baptism certificates to the individual baptized in-proxy for them. Just keep a note for their own archives.

The Mormons have a huge databank in Salt Lake city supposedly thought to contain most of the birth/death records for the western world. We know it exists, we just don't know how far it goes back or which countries it includes. Their interest in baptizing the dead leads them to keep very, very accurate records.

What they use the information for is nuts but there's little doubt it's bang on the money.

[das_atheist]

I don't see the problem with it. Like them or loathe them there is no denying the Catholics and Mormons have some of the best record keeping skills on the planet. I don't see any reason to object to a baptismal certificate, in fact in the case of the Mormons, Anglicans and Catholics theirs are probably more reliable than the state issued birth certificates in some countries!

First off, all religions are treated equal so we are not just trusting the Catholics and Mormons for accurate record keeping and honesty. 
Second, organized religion is notorious for scandals. They are going to abuse this power if they aren't already.

[Metis]

First off, all religions are treated equal so we are not just trusting the Catholics and Mormons for accurate record keeping and honesty. 
Second, organized religion is notorious for scandals. They are going to abuse this power if they aren't already.

I suppose your first point is true in America. There any old hack can set up a Church and issue certificates but I dare wager when they say they accept baptismal certificates there will be some provisos. In Europe and Canada it's not even close to as easy, I don't think you're even legally allowed to issue any form of identity confirmation without the support of an established Church (i.e: Anglicans can but Baptists can't).

As for scandal, state departments get those too. Sure we expect more from the Churches/Mosques/Temples but the public services get their own share of creeps too.

[das_atheist]

[rexbeccarox]

Are you objecting to the use of religious records as a certification of birth?  Why?

Boru

Yes.

The first amendment does not allow the state to respect the church in any legal way. It also lets you pray in school so don't be too mad.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

What law are you even talking about? It's not like the government is requiring anyone to list religious records in order to obtain a passport.

[das_atheist]